'Legal Aspects of Business Essay\r'

'Facts of the Case:\r\n1. The appellant herein Deokabai is an old widow residing in a portion of a house with her daughter and grand children. On 18.1.79 she entered into an parallelism to sell that portion of the house in her will power with Uttam, the respondent. The total cut- rank sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 48,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- was paid to her as earnest specie. The pledge for sale was reduced to writing. 2. Before registration of the sale performance of the house in Uttam’s name, authorization of the fitted authority, Nagpur, was necessary. Therefore, Deokabai shall immediately take steps to restrain the allowance.\r\nAfter the date of getting the allowance from the competent authority, when Deokabai would get another desirable house in form of address she would get the sale deed of this house registered in Uttam’s name. 3. The entire cost of registration of the sale deed of the house shall be borne by Uttam. In slipperiness th ere is any complication or difficulty in getting the sale deed of the house registered in Uttam’s name or in case it becomes legally impossible for Deokabai to get the sale deed of the house registered in Uttam’s name, then Deokabai shall pay back to Uttam the amount of Rs. 5,000/- with interest group thereon. Deokabai shall not consecrate forth any vindicate for the same.\r\nLegal Issues:\r\nSo far as the fork up agreement for sale was concerned, she took the step of applying for necessary permission to the Competent Authority, Nagpur on March 3, 1979. The requisite permission for selling the house was appropriateed to her in the calendar month of May, 1979. On 9.7.79, a notice was sent by the respondent to the appellant requiring her to get the sale deed executed and registered’ in his favour on 9.7.1979 and to remain present in the office of Registrar at 11 a.m. Since the appellant failed to turn up at the appointed prison term and place and the respon dent allegedly had taken all steps necessary towards extremity of the sale deed, like purchase of st angstrom cover and buying of drafts of money, he filed a suit for specialised performance on July 26, 1979. The respondent firstly prayed for a decree for specific performance and possession of the  stead in dispute, but in the alternative claimed deport of the earnest money of Rs. 5,000/with interest in case specific performance was not allowed.\r\nLaw relevant:\r\nSection 32 provides that contingent flummoxs to do or not to do anything if an uncertain future outcome happens cannot be enforced by law unless and until the return has happened. If the event becomes impossible, such contracts become void.\r\nSimilar Cases:\r\nThe pastime cases have cited the above case (Deokabai (Smt) vs Uttam on 27 July, 1993) to give a Judgment. 1. Bhagwan Singh vs Teja Singh Alias Teja Ram on 6 January, 1994 2. Kum. Maria Eliza Marques vs Shri Madhukar M. Moraskar & angstrom; Others on 19 N ovember, 1997 3. Kec International Limited & … vs Union Of India & Others on 8 July, 2009 4. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors vs Kec International Ltd. & Ors on 15 September, 2009 5. W.P. No. 7513 (W) Of 2011 Smt. … vs The State Of west Bengal & Ors on 18 May, 2011\r\nConclusion:\r\nThe respondent, in the situation, could not straightway ask the appellant to specifically perform the contract unless he initially had put the appellant to notice, to seek and get another fitting try-on within a reasonable time within which it could reasonably be available in the town of Nagpur. Such a notice app arntly could be given only after the grant of permission to sell by the Competent Authority, Nagpur, because in the event of non-grant of permission the search for another suitable accommodation would have become unnecessary.\r\nThus we atomic number 18 of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the two important contingencies are the appellant getting a suitable accommodation before she could be asked to specifically perform the contract of sale and, in case of a current difficulty arising, to opt for returning the earnest money with interest. She cannot, in the present set of facts, be make to part with her property by effecting a sale. Resultantly, the put forward to grant refund of Rs. 5,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% calculated from 18.1.79 till payment or recovery is allowed.\r\n'